SYSTEMS
T H E
F E A T U R E
BUILDING TRUST AND COHESIVENESS
IN A LEADERSHIP TEAM
B Y D E E P I K A
ver several years, I had devel-
O oped a strong relationship with
the leadership team of a $3 billion
division of a Fortune 100 organization.
A shuffling of portfolio and responsi-
bilities had precipitated a 360-review
and a new leader assimilation and
coaching process for the global senior
vice president of manufacturing, Sam
Allard. As part of the coaching process,
Sam invited me to observe a business
meeting of his global manufacturing
team in which they were discussing
key priorities and agreeing on the
strategic agenda for the year ahead.
It was a long day of heated discus-
sions with little agreement or progress
against an ambitious agenda. Sam asked
how I thought it had gone. I recall say-
ing, “It depends on your desired out-
come. If success meant getting through
the agenda and getting resolution on
the issues, you did not meet that objec-
tive. If, however, you wanted to get a
view of the team dynamics, I believe
you had a very successful meeting.” He
laughed and said, “What should I do
about this situation? I need a team of
VPs who can work together to create
uniform standards of manufacturing
that are necessary for us to achieve our
revenue and profitability targets. Can
you help me?”
TEAM TIP
Use the tools outlined in this
article—the Human Structural
Dynamics Model, the four behaviors
of dialogue, and Kantor’s Four-Player
System—as a guide for developing the
skills needed for a high-performing
team.
2 Copyright © 2009 Pegasus Communications, Inc. (www.pegasuscom.com)
All rights reserved. For permission to distribute copies of this article in any form, please contact us at permissions@pegasuscom.com.
THINKER
B U I L D I N G S H A R E D U N D E R S T A N D I N G
®
V O L . 20 N O . 4 M AY 2 0 0 9
N AT H
The Team’s Current State we operate. It’s a challenge to get
through an agenda with this group.”
In the meeting I attended, I observed a
team that was ill equipped to work in a These one-on-one conversations
collaborative and productive manner. helped validate my hypotheses around
Some of the behaviors I saw included: specific concerns and enlisted the
• An inability to focus on an agenda executives in Sam’s overall objective—
and make decisions of creating a cohesive team who could
• A lack of willingness to engage in work well together in executing an
dialogue aggressive and critical element of the
• Poor capacity to listen to one organization’s strategy.
another I also used a team effectiveness
• An apparent lack of respect for one questionnaire from Edgar Schein (from
another’s ideas Process Consultation: Its Role in Organi-
• A tendency to personalize the con- zation Development, Addison-Wesley,
versation and get defensive 1988, p. 57–58) to get the team to self-
assess and have a structured view of
their current effectiveness.When I
In the meeting I attended,
shared the results of this assessment,
I observed a team that was one of the executives commented, “I
had no idea we were so disruptive in
ill equipped to work in a
the way we operated.”
collaborative and productive Based on the assessments, and
with Sam’s agreement, my mandate for
manner.
a 12-month engagement was to create
a team that:
These observations led to some • Made sound business decisions in a
preliminary hypotheses—that the considered and timely manner
group lacked trust and the willingness • Had the ability to work together to
to operate as a team; that they were solve critical production and quality
focused on furthering their individual issues
agendas; and that they would be • Engaged in meetings that were pro-
unsuccessful in creating a standardized ductive, energetic, and constructive
manufacturing platform for the com- • Showed evidence of listening, collab-
pany unless they were able to come oration, and mutual respect
together and operate with mutual • Set aside personal agendas and
respect, trust, and a willingness to listen depersonalized the conversation
to and learn from each other. • Collaborated to develop and imple-
During conversations concerning ment a world-class manufacturing
Sam’s 360-review, I had developed a strategy
rapport with each member of the
team. I leveraged this to have open and The Design of Interventions
honest discussions on what I’d I saw this as an amazing opportunity to
observed during their business meeting. delve into territory that is typically not
One of them commented, “It was explored. I based the design of my
interventions on a model of human
embarrassing to have you witness that
meeting.That is so typical of the way structural dynamics derived from the
 HUMAN STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS MODEL
Koehler, 1999; Elliott, Locating the
Energy for Change: An
Traditional Territory Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry, Inter-
Less national Institute for Sustainable Devel-
Visible
Environment opment, 1999).
Broader • The ability to listen deeply allows for
Social Business connection and a foundation for col-
Structures
laboration and “thinking together”—
the essence of dialogue (Isaacs,
Organization
Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together,
R
E Currency/Doubleday, 1999).
Face-toFace Doing the Work S More • Dialogue fosters and maintains the
Levels of U
Structure Structures
Interpersonal Behavior
Visible high levels of openness and trust that
L
T are present in healthy teams.
S “Progress Toward Trust and Cohe-
Mental Models siveness” demonstrates how the differ-
ent elements were integrated to guide
Deeper Beliefs the team’s progress toward trust and
Individual
Structures cohesion. In addition to determining
the current state, five other building
Critical Images and Stories
Least blocks contributed toward creating a
Visible
team that was able to sustain behavioral
Less Acknowledged Territory changes that enabled an environment
Source: Ober, Kantor, and Yanowitz, 1995 of trust, collaboration, and cohesiveness:
This model suggests that human interactions are a function of the social context in which they take
place and of what goes on in people’s hearts and minds. Establishing Structural Elements. Sam
wanted the team to own and follow
basic housekeeping guidelines.This set
work of David Kantor (see “Human and at some point sharing of deep of interventions was aimed at establish-
Structural Dynamics Model”).This imagery from each individual, it would ing a process by which the team could
model suggests that human interactions help this team coalesce and begin the focus its discussions and deliberations
are a function of the social context in process of trusting each other. and make decisions in an effective
which they take place and of what goes manner. It involved clarifying roles and
on in people’s hearts and minds (Ober, The Team Interventions responsibilities, delineating decision
Kantor,Yanowitz, “Creating Business At the team level, the interventions rights, and setting up operating guide-
Results Through Team Learning, The were designed to help develop
Systems Thinker, V6N5, June/July, 1995, trust and connection, and start
pp.1–5). I chose to focus on two to develop the capacity for lis- PROGRESS TOWARD TRUST AND
aspects of this model—the team or tening. The following models, COHESIVEN ESS
what is described as the face-to-face beliefs, and assumptions influ-
structure, and the deeper individual enced the choice of interven- Establishing Structural Elements
structures and how they might influ- tions:
ence the team’s interactions, either • A high-performing team is
one-on-one or in the team. characterized in part by strong
Ap Cap

I chose to include individual-level personal commitments to the

m

pr ab
ys r
te
o S ve

ec ilit
n t ser

iat ie

interventions because they cover growth and success of each

tio Ob

ing s a

ground that is typically less acknowl- team member (Katzenbach and

ela an

Di nd S

Creating
ve k
n R ing

edged and yet significantly impacts Smith, The Wisdom of Teams:

rs ills

Sustainability
lf i m

ity
Se co

behavior—what we see at the face-to- Creating the High Performance of Change

of
of Be

face level. It also meshed well with my Organization, Harper Business,

belief as an OD practitioner that all 1993).
Developing Capacity for New Behaviors
change starts with individual change, • Appreciation of individual
and that our behavior as adults is experiences and gifts is a
strongly influenced by our mental powerful foundation for
models, core beliefs, and stories—many transformation and allows for Determine the Current State
of these arising from experiences in creation of powerful outcomes
The interventions were integrated to guide the team’s progress
our formative years. I had a sense that (Cooperrider and Whitney,
toward trust and cohesion.
if I was able to allow for the surfacing Appreciative Inquiry, Berrett-

© 2 0 0 9 P E G A S U S C O M M U N I C AT I O N S 781.398.9700 THE SYSTEMS THINKER® M AY 2 0 0 9 3

lines between Sam and his team, as well
as within the team.
Developing the Capacity for Deep
Listening and Dialogue. The more
challenging aspects of this engagement
were around creating a safe container for
the team to have strong dialogue.To
achieve this, I introduced the principles
and intentions of council to structure the
meetings (Zimmerman and Coyle, The
Way of Council, Bramble Books, 1996;
Baldwin, Calling the Circle:The First and
Future Culture, Bantam, 1998).These
principles included always being seated
in a circle and using a talking piece that
the team co-created.The intentions of
council are speaking from the heart or
being honest and authentic; listening
from the heart or being deeply present
and attentive when another speaks; being
“lean of expression” and learning to be
succinct; and allowing for silence as well
as spontaneous expression.
To facilitate their interactions
within this structure and to help them
make the distinctions that would allow
them to realize the intentions of council,
I introduced the four behaviors of dia-
logue as described by Bill Isaacs—voic-
ing, listening, respecting, and suspending
(see “Developing the Capacity for New
Behaviors”). At one level, the intention
was to help the team develop a capacity
DEVELOPING THE CAPACITY FOR NEW BEHAV IORS
• Speaking the truth of one’s
VOICING
• Asks: What needs to be said?
SUSPENDING
• Suspension of assumptions,
judgment, and certainty
• Asks: How does this work?
RESPECTING
• Awareness of the integrity of
another’s position and the impossibility
of fully understanding it
• Asks: How does this fit?
The four behaviors of dialogue as described by Bill Isaacs are voicing, listening, respecting, and
suspending.
for listening without judgment and
reaction, and at another it was aimed at
helping them experience how deep lis-
tening could result in more powerful
outcomes and decisions. Above all, it was
aimed at building trust within the team.
Over the course of my engagement
(and subsequently), the team adopted
sitting in a circle as part of their meeting
protocol. Initially they struggled with
the some of the practices of council—in
particular with holding a silence.They
tended to reach for the talking stick
before the person who was speaking had
finished. Over time, as they became
more comfortable with the practices, the
use of the talking stick as a mechanism
to allow “one voice at a time” and to
help “hold the silence” evolved from a
forced behavior to a more natural and
comfortable one.Their discussions went
from individuals fighting to say their
piece to comments that were more
indicative of listening and building on
what has been said.The reaction to
silence went from a rush to fill it to
actually asking for a moment of reflec-
tion during the course of a conversation.
Although there was evidence of
progress, it was more of an iterative
process than a linear progression.The
awareness and reinforcement of dialogic
behaviors was one that continued
throughout my 12-month engagement
own authority, what one
really is and thinks
LISTENING
• Without resistance
or imposition
• Asks: How does this feel?
Source: Isaacs, 1999
with this team and continues to be a
core part of the team’s operating model.
Appreciating the Diversity of Skills and
Capabilities. While most of Sam’s team
had been at this company for many
years and had deep roots in the industry,
some of the more recent additions were
brought in with different industry expe-
rience, including experience in creating
world-class manufacturing organizations.
The input of these individuals was often
not considered and valued by their col-
leagues. As Sam put it,“I hired Joel and
Charisse for their expertise in Lean
Manufacturing. I am concerned the rest
of the team is shutting them out. I sup-
pose I could be more directive by sim-
ply telling people we have to rely on
their experience, but I don’t want to add
to the resistance.”
The team needed to operate in an
environment of respect and appreciation
for the diversity of style, skills, experi-
ences, and contributions.They also
needed to understand how to work
effectively with this diversity and lever-
age the strengths of each other.To create
this culture and capacity, I used interven-
tions derived from Appreciative Inquiry,
team role preference (Margerison and
McCann,“Team Management Profiles:
Their Use in Managerial Development,”
Journal of Management Development,Vol 4,
No 2, pp 34–37, 1985), and individual
assessments such as DiSC as building
blocks on the foundation of dialogue.
These interventions had the
desired impact. For instance, the Appre-
ciative Inquiry exercise used in the first
session allowed for a breaking of the
ice in the team.The team found many
points of connection—shared experi-
ences, interests, hopes, and desires. After
that session, some of the sources of ten-
sion dissipated, such as the resentment
of the role an individual played or the
lack of industry experience. In addition,
the resistance to being seen as and
operating as a team started to fall away
as they worked through their stories of
positive team experiences.
In using the Team Management
Profiles, the team was able to appreciate
the different work preferences and styles
that were present in the room. It
allowed them to identify strategies that
would be most effective in interacting

4 T H E S Y S T E M S T H I N K E R ® V O L . 2 0 , N O. 4 w w w. p e g a s u s c o m . c o m © 2 0 0 9 P E G A S U S C O M M U N I C AT I O N S
 KANTOR ’ S “FOUR-PLAYER” SYSTEM
MOVER
Without movers,
there is no direction
BYSTANDER
Without bystanders,
there is no perspective
OPPOSER
Without opposers,
there is no correction
Source: David Kantor in Isaacs, 1999 taped some of their
Kantor’s Four-Player System helps team members understand the roles they
tend to play in conversations.
with this group of individuals and to
value the different roles each member
of the team tended to prefer in a team
setting. It also gave them a snapshot of
what might be missing and how they
could develop those roles as a collective.
Becoming an Observer of the Self. As I
worked with the team, I felt it was
important to facilitate the development
of their capacity for diagnosis and action
in order to make them self-correcting
and self-sustaining after I had transi-
tioned out of the process. I also wanted
them to have a greater awareness of how
to facilitate a dialogue by understanding
the roles they tended to gravitate to in a
conversation. I introduced another ele-
ment of structural dynamics—that of
boundary profiles and, more specifically,
David Kantor’s “four-player system”
(Kantor and Lonstein,“Reframing Team
Relationships: How the Principles of
‘Structural Dynamics’ Can Help Teams
Come to Terms with Their Dark Side,”
The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, Currency/
Doubleday, 1994).
My intention was to get this team
of individuals to see their patterns of
interaction. I believed if they were con-
scious of their operating tendencies,
how these impacted their effectiveness,
and what roles were being played out in
their team interactions, they might be
able to shift the roles they played and
engage in more productive and effec-
© 2 0 0 9 P E G A S U S C O M M U N I C AT I O N S
tive dialogue. It
would help them
notice whether their
conversations were
dialogic in nature or
at the level of dis-
cussion and debate.
At a minimum, it
FOLLOWER would increase their
Without followers, self-awareness of
there is no completion
how they showed up
and help them
develop a capacity to
become observers of
their own behavior.
To facilitate their
learning, I video-
meetings and had
them analyze their
interactions after-
ward.
One of the insights that emerged
was the difference in expectations of
how the team should operate. For
instance, Sam expected his team to be
his equal partners in the decisions they
made.There were some members who
would defer to Sam’s decisions.
Another insight came from seeing two
members of the team frequently engag-
ing in a move-oppose dynamic and
how it stymied the progression of the
conversation.
Creating Sustainability of Change. The
emphasis of each intervention was to
help them not only become familiar
with the skills but also to practice and
develop a level of mastery with that skill.
Each session built on the previous ones.
The final intervention was a visual
image storytelling process (Reeve, Creat-
ing a Catalyst for Change via Collage-
Inspired Conversations, unpublished
Master’s thesis, Fielding Graduate Uni-
versity, 2005) where the team incorpo-
rated the various building blocks (i.e.,
practices of dialogue, appreciation and
knowledge of self and other, and obser-
vation) to co-create their vision for their
team. It required them to collaboratively
create the guiding principles and core
values of the team, and the behaviors
that would govern their interactions
going forward, by building on the values
and vision of each individual. I chose a
visual process to shift the context from
781.398.9700 THE SYSTEMS THINKER®
the verbal, left-brain activities that this
team was facile with to a process that
would invite them to activate in a posi-
tive way some of the drivers of their
behavior—their beliefs, values, and men-
tal models. As the team moved from
sharing individual values and beliefs to
co-creating a shared set of guiding prin-
ciples and vision, they exhibited respect
for individual ideas and the diversity of
opinions.There was a remarkable
absence of the heated arguments that
had characterized the first meeting I’d
attended. In its place was an energy of
collaboration and partnership, resulting
in the creation of a shared vision that
each individual had contributed to,
owned, and had personalized through
the storytelling process.
The Individual Interventions
While working with the team as an
entity, I was also coaching individual
members. A core outcome for the
coaching sessions was to help the indi-
vidual become an observer of the self
and understand what drove behavior so
they were able to choose how to act,
rather than acting from a place of
habitual tendency.The ultimate goal for
the “Human Structural Dynamics
Model” is authenticity; insight, mastery,
and alignment are intermediate stages
that lead to authenticity. In an effort to
be pragmatic (and recognizing the
journey toward authenticity is a life-
long one), I focused on a realistic goal
of building the capacity for insight
through self awareness and inquiry into
the underlying causes of behaviors,
along with varying degrees of mastery.
Using a subset of the human struc-
tural dynamics model as a base, I
worked to help each individual become
aware of their feelings, mental models,
belief systems, and deeper stories that
governed their behavior in the team
context. Specifically, the intent was to
make visible those factors that were
invisible or less visible and enable the
individual to act in an authentic manner.
As I used this model to guide the
individual coaching sessions with each
executive, my role evolved in the fol-
lowing manner:
• Help the individual become aware of
feelings, mental models, belief systems,
and deeper stories
M AY 2 0 0 9 5
• Create and strengthen their capacity
for embracing these deeper structures
• Facilitate their understanding of how
these structures impact their behavior
and how to recognize the shadow
aspects
• Help them develop the ability to
reframe and choose the internal struc-
tures that influence behavior
Interplay Between Individual
and Team Interventions
Having simultaneous interventions at
the individual and team levels and
playing a dual role as facilitator for the
team and as personal coach allowed me
to observe shifts that occurred as indi-
viduals gained insight into their behav-
ior and changed how they interacted
with the team.The team meetings also
provided me with direction on how to
intervene at the individual level with
different executives.
The Results
Over the 12-month period, there were
many visible changes at both the team
level and with individuals. For instance,
the team’s interactions were much less
fractious and chaotic.Their discussions
resulted in key decisions being made in
a timely manner with each individual
feeling heard even if their idea was not
included.They had greater appreciation
and respect for what their colleagues
brought to the team—“I had no idea
Charisse had such wide-ranging experi-
ence. It is quite refreshing to have some-
one who hasn’t grown up in this
industry.”
They were able to appreciate
silence and the quality of reflection and
insight that came from it—“I realized
how much of my time is filled with
doing things—meetings, conference
calls. I never get time to think. I was
actually able to think about and find a
solution to this problem.”There was a
greater sense of camaraderie and trust
among them. In self-assessing their
progress on the team effectiveness
instrument used at the beginning of
the process, on all measures, the team
had moved from a “below average”
score to an “above average” rating.
When I started my work with the
team, I would have described members
as exhibiting behaviors characteristic of
6 T H E S Y S T E M S T H I N K E R ® V O L . 2 0 , N O. 4
“breakdown.” Probably one of the passion for themselves, they developed
more profound changes I saw was their the capacity for compassion toward oth-
ability to maintain a quality of inquiry. ers. This in turn allowed for a level of
At rare moments, particularly in our trust and a commitment to each other’s
last session together, there were success, which provided a strong basis for
moments when their interactions had collaboration.
elements of flow.
At the individual level, the changes Critical Success Factors
varied depending on the person. Cer- I was operating at two levels of the sys-
tainly some of them moved more than tem simultaneously and addressed not
others.As their capacity to observe their only the behaviors that emerged in
own behavior grew, it created greater team interactions but also the underly-
awareness and ownership of their own ing triggers of these behaviors. One
issues, and led to more courage and reason I was able to successfully take
honesty in their communications.As this path was Sam’s uncompromising
they stepped in to appreciate and value sponsorship and support, as well as the
their own contributions and role on the trust we had built as a result of our
team, their insecurities went down; they long-standing relationship and my can-
developed more confidence and demon- dor in the early stages of the engage-
strated a greater sense of presence as ment. Over the course of the 12
leaders.The awareness and legitimizing months, he allowed me tremendous
of their individual stories allowed them creative freedom to introduce the ideas
to have respect for and appreciation of behind council practices and dialogue.
the same in others. By practicing com- He’d been exposed to the practices and
BEIN G A REFLECTIVE PRACTITION ER
In the course of this engagement, I found myself engaging in a great deal of reflection
around my capacity as an OD practitioner. At various points, I explored different
questions, including:
• What is my typical stance with clients?
• How am I showing up? How does it feel?
• How do my own inner stories and mental models influence me?
• How can I consciously choose to shift from my “tendency”?
• What will it take to shift my stance to what is needed?
• What is the impact if I shift my stance? What is the risk if I don’t shift my stance?
The process of being both coach and facilitator provided me with a powerful illustration
of the importance of having a strong container for individual and collective transforma-
tion. I was constantly stepping into a place of modeling the behaviors I introduced to the
team—learning to honor silence; bringing a mindset of appreciation to the conversation;
making the invisible visible in my own context; acting with courage in situations that chal-
lenged me personally, such as not being compelled to have all the answers, not taking
their resistance to some of the ideas I introduced as personal criticism, and being a mir-
ror for them when situations that contributed to the dysfunction in the team came up.
I used this engagement to expand my comfort zone. Since I was working closely with this
team over a significant period of time, I took a reflective stance for each encounter and
expressly asked, “What could I have done differently to make this session more effective
for you?” It allowed the team to see that it was acceptable to not be perfect; it gave me
a chance to get real-time feedback that could improve my capacity as a facilitator and
helped me explore my own growing edge around feedback and criticism.
Another area I consciously worked with was to develop my ability to let go of managing
the outcome. I actively practiced being present to and responding more in the
moment—operating with a sense of connection to my own insight and intuition, with
powerful positive outcomes.This engagement built my capacity to be an observer of
myself and of the system. It has strengthened my ability as an intervener and has con-
tributed significantly to the development of my voice and my own transformation.
w w w. p e g a s u s c o m . c o m © 2 0 0 9 P E G A S U S C O M M U N I C AT I O N S
was a great believer in the notion of
“going slow to go fast.”
Although some members of the
team were initially resistant to the team
process, because of my work with them
individually, they grew to trust me with
their inner stories and thus trust the
process I was taking the team through.
Their cynicism and resistance started to
wear down as they experienced having
a voice in the conversation and being
heard as a result of using council and
dialogue practices.
One of the other unexpected con-
tributors to the success of the engage-
ment was my knowledge of the
organization, its business, and the
dynamics within the industry. It
allowed me to connect the interven-
tions aimed at strengthening team
effectiveness to core business issues the
team was dealing with, rather than
have “stand-alone” team-building ses-
sions. By integrating business issues
into the design of the interventions,
the team had an immediate context for
applying and practicing their new skills,
which enhanced the capacity for reten-
tion and recall of new behaviors.
Challenges Encountered
There were some challenges during
the course of this engagement. Even as
they saw the value of the practices of
council and dialogue, the team didn’t
readily embrace some aspects. It took a
while for them to honor silence and
not jump into the fray. “I find it so dif-
ficult to sit still and not say something
when no one is speaking. It makes me
wonder if I did something wrong,” said
one of the executives early in our ses-
sions. While this reflected the challenge
of holding silence, it was also a power-
ful example of how our inner story
shows up in our behavior. Over time,
and with the help of reflective practices
in their individual coaching as well as
in their team sessions, they started to
see the value of having silence and
silent time in their process.
Another difficulty that was more
present in earlier sessions than in later
ones was a desire to be “in action.”
This is reflected in the comment from
a team member that “we talk a lot and
I enjoy our sessions, but when do we
© 2 0 0 9 P E G A S U S C O M M U N I C AT I O N S
make decisions for the business?” For- Summary
tunately, given Sam’s experience with The human structural dynamics model
dialogue, he was able to support me provided a valuable set of lenses to
and provide a context of “We are mak- examine this team’s issues. At the same
ing decisions. By talking about and time, it allowed for improvisation in
resolving the issues, our decisions are the choice of interventions used to
becoming clearer.” It took them a address different team issues.The occa-
while to realize that by being in dia- sion to work with an intact team over
logue, they were “in action” around an extended period of time helped
decisions. create a robust foundation wherein the
In creating the experience of skills introduced had a chance of tak-
being an observer of the self and using ing hold. It helped build trust with
the four-player model, there were some each individual and created a space for
unintended consequences. During the personal growth.This systemic
debrief, one of the team commented, approach presented a powerful learn-
ing opportunity for all of us engaged
in the process. •
The human structural dynamics
A longer version of this article appears in
model provided a valuable set Reflections:The SoL Journal on
Knowledge, Learning, and Change, Volume
of lenses to examine this 9 Number 1. For more information, go to
team’s issues. www.solonline.org/reflections.
Deepika Nath (dnath@indicaconsulting.com) is
“We sure were on our best behavior the founder and principal of Indica Consulting,
today. I suppose we knew we were where her focus is on bridging strategy and organi-
zational development to bring about growth and
being watched.” Had I anticipated this
lasting transformation. She is a trusted advisor and
better, I might have introduced a dis- coach to senior executives seeking to define an
turbance to the system to raise the authentic and effective leadership style. Her experi-
stakes, because when the stakes are ence spans 15 years of strategy and organizational
consulting with leading firms such as the Boston
high, people tend to revert to “default”
Consulting Group and Ernst & Young. A member of
or typical behaviors, especially in early SoL, she holds a PhD in Management and an MA in
stages of behavioral change. Organizational Development.
NEXT STEPS
Guidelines for Working with Our Learning “Selves”
The following guidelines and practices may be useful in a continuing journey toward a
more expansive, open, and “learning” self:
• Practice saying “I don’t know” whenever appropriate. You may find it to be quite freeing
to admit that you don’t know something.
• Learn to “let go” of the need to be in control of yourself or others. In order for us to
learn, we must care more about learning than about being in control.
• Continually challenge yourself to hold your perceptions up to the light. This means
continually studying them from all angles. Remember that these beliefs may reflect
more truths about yourself than about reality.
• Admit when you are wrong. Try to freely and openly admit when you are wrong (or
admit that your assumptions may be inaccurate even the first time you state them!).
• “Seek first to understand, and then to be understood.” Steven Covey suggests asking
yourself, “Do I avoid autobiographical responses, and instead faithfully reflect my
understanding of the other person before seeking to be understood?”
In “Opening the Window to New Learning” by Kellie Wardman, Leverage (Pegasus Communications, Inc., May 1999)
781.398.9700 THE SYSTEMS THINKER® M AY 2 0 0 9 7